ROYAL GORGE REALLY DOES REGARD SERENE LAKES AS NOTHING MORE THAN A RESERVOIR- A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SLCWD'S PROPOSED ORDINANCES, AND RG'S OBJECTIONS

At the February 16 Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) board meeting, the board introduced two draft ordinances regarding operations (drafts were available Feb.13), which they intend to vote on at next month's board meeting, Friday, March 14. Members of the board discussed the rationale behind the proposed ordinances, and they heard public comment, and will be continuing to accept public input the entire month, with time allowed for comment at the next board meeting.

I think, at the outset, it's useful to spell out what SLCWD does and does not do, a concept which, apparently, from the tenor of the objections raised by Royal Gorge LLC (RG) via their two separate sets of lawyers who have submitted comments, RG is not quite clear on. Mr. Kelley, of the law firm Somach, Simmons,& Dunne made a protest on behalf of RG that they regarded one of SLCWD's proposed ordinances as a "moratorium" on growth.  He was somewhat mollified (as much as you can ever mollify a lawyer) when it was explained to him that the ordinance was not in any way an attempt to phase or control growth, something that SLCWD does not do, but merely a measure to codify ongoing policy regarding service priorities. It seems it's hard for RG to grasp two essential points. First of all, it's not "all about them." In point of fact, for the past 5 years the SLCWD has been working towards developing a Sierra Lakes Water System Master Plan. With the uncertainties of water resultant from droughts, increased development, global warming, and other factors, county water agencies are being encouraged to plan ahead for various contingencies, with one goal being orderly continual delivery of water. Whether or not RG and their big plans came along, SLCWD was going to be moving forward with a plan for managing the water supply.

Second, regarding RG's development, SLCWD is not the agency passing rules, or making any decisions, aside from issuance or non-issuance of a "will-serve".  SLCWD, a publicly elected board, is responsible for our water delivery and sewage disposal. They are expected to, and do make decisions based on objective criteria regarding issues surrounding the orderly management and delivery of our water, and the health of our lakes, including aesthetic and recreational values (RG and their lawyers think SLCWD shouldn't even be allowed to consider recreation- more on that later). SLCWD is not an agency that weighs in in any manner on the merits or lack of merits of RG's proposed development. To the extent that members of the public are opposed to RG's massive proposed development, they should remember that those comments should be directed to Placer County, or organizations fighting the development.  To the extent that excess water draws will impact the lakes or will affect water supply, environmental issues, downstream users, etc.- those concerns are relevant to SLCWD.  However, we all (RG included) need to realize it is only appropriate to raise issues to the board concerning water, lakes, and the management of the lakes.  Enough said- but, you'll see misunderstandings (whether real or planted) by RG and their fleets of lawyers trying to muddy the waters on this issue in the next month, which is really silly on their part. These two draft ordinances deal with water, and not RG's proposed development, and shouldn't be alarming RG to the extent of their layering on encrustations of lawyers- the draft ordinances seem to be pretty vanilla flavored, white bread, run of the mill ordinances, aimed at allocating water hook-ups fairly, and making sure Serene Lakes aren't drained... oh,  wait... maybe that second one worries RG.  On to the ordinances! 

ORDINANCE NO. 2008-082: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SIERRA LAKES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CONCERNING WATER SERVICE PRIORITIES, WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY AND DEFICIENCY MANAGEMENT POLICY, AND WATER SERVICE CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION

This ordinance is directed at insuring that all the already subdivided, but not built out lots, which had been assessed a stand-by charge to be eligible for water and sewer service, are basically, first in line for water and sewer service. Pretty fair, as purchasers of those lots made their purchases in reliance upon the fact that when sewage capacity opened up, they would be served by SLCWD.  It would be a shame if someone who came along later and subdivided previously unentitled property could shut the earlier legal lots out of water resources- that would in fact probably expose SLCWD to the specter of a whole slew of lawsuits. The ordinance lays out a priority of services, provided sufficient water is available. The ordinance in no way discriminates against similar classes of customers, i.e., once you're served, you're served, and if there's a drought, we'll all be following the same drought measures. 

I'm not going to go into RG's lawyer's objections to this draft ordinance today- let's just say they threw in everything and the kitchen sink, including weak caselaw, and caselaw that was completely inapposite (why do lawyers get paid 100's of dollars an hour to waste time like that?). It will give me something to write about on savethesummit, for the next week or two, if I get bored. Basically, their argument is a high pitched "it's unfair", which is a bit thick, as RG bought all their property knowing there was a pre-existing subdivision whose landowners had present rights to be served, and second, RG properties are already at the head of the line to be served too, as they presently exist, i.e., a zoned 40 acre lot can get service-just not for all the subdivision RG is presumably going to apply for (no hurry, guys) from Placer County.

It's with RG's comments to the second ordinance, the one aimed at maintaining water levels in Serene Lakes, that RG really starts to show their true colors (hint-not green). For all RG's  soothing talk of not wanting to harm Serene Lakes, and never intending to draw our lakes down so far they'll be ringed with mud, once SLCWD put out a draft ordinance limiting draw downs (barring emergencies) to no more than 3 feet, RG went ballistic- here's the ordinance, and a few lowpoints of RG's arguments.

ORDINANCE NO. 2008-083: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SIERRA LAKES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF SERENE LAKES FOR WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, AESTHETIC, ECOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

Here's a quick sum up. The district has managed its water to prevent a drop of more than 3 feet below the dam spillway since the 70's, and new bathymetric studies indicate a drop of more than 3 feet would expose expansive areas of lake bed, so the ordinance, with all of the bells and whistles and exceptions that are part and parcel of ordinances, says SLCWD will aim at limiting the drop to no more than 3 feet.  Sounds like a good plan, right, and maybe even like solid horse sense?  

Send in the clowns:

First, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLP, the firm that represented SLPOA a few short years ago commenting on the EIR on Van Norden Meadow (which is still an active EIR), now represents RG- smell a conflict? Anyways, Remy makes the specious argument that SLCWD, by making an ordinance that codifies existing practice, triggers the CEQA process- you know, the one developers have to go through to put up 1000 condos?  Yes, to do exactly what SLCWD has always done, they have to spend time and wheelbarrows full of our rate-payer money to show they're not harming the environment by maintaining present lake levels.  Sound illogical? You're right, it is, and there are quite a few exceptions to the CEQA requirements that fit SLCWD's proposed ordinance nicely, including one called the "common sense" exception.  That's the thing about hired guns, though. When you pay them to represent you, they'll set aside their common sense.  Here's the money question, though. What are Kirk Syme, Todd and Mark Foster, and, presumably, Mike Livak thinking? Do they have the sense they were born with? Where's the sense in forcing SLCWD to spend time and money (our money, by the way) to prove that maintaining the lake level at the present level won't harm the environment?  

It gets worse, though. Law firm number 2, Somach, Simmons, and Dunn, made the mind-bogglingly inane argument that SLCWD is prohibited from considering aesthetic, ecological, or recreational purposes by the strictures of the section of Water Code under which it was formed, because the district can't construct recreational facilities.  Uh, there is a difference between building facilities, and considering recreational aspects of maintaining the same water level- is common sense in such short supply these days? These legal wunderkinds also apparently haven't kept up to date on California law- as they neglect to remember the doctrine of beneficial use, as in, beneficial use extends to supporting habitat and keeping fish alive, and maintaining water levels to support recreational use. They also side step the Public Trust Doctrine, which has only grown in strength since the Mono Lake Case.  The Public Trust Doctrine underpins, or should underpin every decision made regarding water in California, and if SLCWD didn't consider aesthetic, ecological, and recreational purposes in decisions regarding water they would be in breach of the Public Trust Doctrine. 

Oh, but it really is just Serene Reservoir to RG.  They could care less about our lakes, and their recreational and scenic value. Their CDM water consultant made that point clear in his memo submitted to the water board opposing the draft water level ordinance. What matters to RG is the fact SLCWD has, at present time, a water right for 1,177 acre-feet per year (AFY). Here's the quote from Mr. Swan, "By limiting the reservoir drawdown, SLCWD is effectively limiting the amount of water they are putting to beneficial use for municipal water supply."  RG and their consultants just don't get the fact that California Courts consider a lot more things "beneficial use" than water coming out of taps and flushing toilets.  Maybe someone should explain that to them. One thing has become obvious from RG's objections to these proposed ordinances- RG doesn't want to float your boat, or anybody else's. 

Remember the lakeside property RG just sold, where they were going to put lake access for their development? Do you really believe their fatuous assertion that they sold it as a "goodwill" gesture to the community? Or, is it because they don't want reservoir-side access? Keep a close watch on Ice Lakes Lodge- if they put that on the market too, be very, very afraid.